Whatever it takes to stop them from masturbating. Sometimes you have to take tough stances on tricky issues. If Lincoln hadn't suspended habeas corpus, we'd never have won the Civil War, if he'd suspended it earlier we might have not even had to fight it.

What do you guys think about alternative voting systems like Approval, Condorcet or IRV? Of course, none of these are compatible with the electoral college but they'll work with state elections. I'm a big fan of IRV, I've donated money to FairVote, an organization that promotes IRV.

I think that if we're going to try to pursue a more fair election system, we really ought not to stop halfway and get stuck with the crappy Plurality system we're all used to.

Wouldn't it be nice if the only thing you had to do to be a good American was put a bunch of American flags on your car and wear clothes with stars and stripes? It's such an easy cop-out that most people believe it's true.

At 10/25/08 04:59 PM, Junoh13206 wrote: YOU GOT THE LINKS TO WORK!?
They brought me to some place where they sell car insurance, don't ask me how.

The links worked when I originally posted them. The Pro-Masturbation movement has probably had them shut down and put out of business. It's really disheartening sometimes to try to fight for this cause, the opposition really has all the advantages.

At 10/25/08 02:50 AM, poxpower wrote: Is it free?
Cause I don't think it's worth any money to laugh at his antics.

It's a minimum suggested required donation. I don't think you'll see any signs saying that you HAVE to pay... but you're going to pay 10 bucks to see the park. I had a good time, it was worth the money.

The worst part of any election system with more than two choices is that it's fundamentally unfair. Dr. Kenneth Arrow proved that any system will fail to meet at least one of the reasonable criteria for a fair voting system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_imp ossibility_theorem

Interestingly, plurality, the system we use, fails almost all of the criteria for fairness. Most people can't even comprehend the possibility of using a different method.

At 10/25/08 02:03 AM, poxpower wrote: Ok answer this: What do you think of Kent Hovind?

His dinosaur park is pretty kickass! I highly recommend it to anyone visiting Pensacola. Too bad Mr. Hovind is in jail for tax evasion, I really would have liked to talk to him.

At 10/25/08 01:57 AM, Garthredbunlove wrote: You can be a critic all you want, but it really is amazing that after only several thousand years of scientific research we've finally narrowed it down to "something", or it's not.

We've really only been doing scientific research for a few hundred years. Everything before that was all mixed up with philosophy and would be considered hopelessly unscientific by today's standards.

At 10/25/08 01:37 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The explanation I gave was what you're force-fed in elementary school. It's not my personal explanation for it.

Okay, I agree with you totally then.

My favorite concept that was force fed in school was 'tolerance.' I made the teacher pretty unhappy when I brought up the obvious problem: "Should we be tolerant of intolerant people?" It turned out that most of the people in class were pretty intolerant of the idea of tolerating the intolerant.

I imagine the same sort of thing would happen if you tried to teach more complicated reasons for the Civil war to students who really haven't had practice thinking about things from multiple points of view.

At 10/24/08 09:06 PM, Korriken wrote: while it shows a possibility, it doesn't actually prove much. There have been experiments showing that life on earth could have happened because of space debris.

I've always hated the exogenesis theory. I don't have any reason to think it's false but it really doesn't answer the important questions.

I might like it better if Earth had conditions that didn't lend themselves to the original formation of life and other planets in the solar system did. Then it might explain how life could migrate from one planet to a planet that would otherwise not be able to generate life.

Since there's no reason that Earth couldn't generate life from scratch, the theory doesn't really help anyone with anything.

In AP history the explanation should be much more elaborate than the explanation you gave. I'm not trying to insult you or anything.

I've always found it interesting that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves in northern states that had legal slavery.

Another fun thought, if Lincoln had been a little faster on the trigger to suspend Habeas Corpus, he could have had General Lee arrested and held without trial before the war started. It's one of the President's 'secret' powers that few people are aware of.

That explanation sounds like the sort of thing that's taught in elementary school. Did you get that explanation from a 6th grade teacher or a High School History teacher?

As you study the subject more you might find that there were many many causes for the Civil war, slavery was only one important issue that gets a large amount of attention due to the human element.

At 10/25/08 01:07 AM, CBP wrote: I love how these dumb ass's can't tell that it's a joke.

I don't see how you can call this a joke. This is a violation of God's sacred law!

It's one thing to disobey God and indulge in your own weaknesses but it's completely unconscionable to rationalize your behavior as an okay activity and then tell others that it's okay as well.

At 5/30/08 06:35 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 5/30/08 06:32 PM, A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot wrote: 'Cough'

Now, why did you do that? the last post was in freaking 06. DX

Because the world needs to know.

'Cough'

It is only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan, ever, ever.

ALIENS caused 9/11 !!!!!

Fuck those abolitionists, abolitionism is an ideology. Fuck Martin Luther King Jr. Racial Equality is an ideology. Fuck Ghandi. Satyagraha is just one more way for those thinkers to screw the regular people.

Close but no cigar. That thing is a total fake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspecti ve

At 11/19/06 02:38 PM, BanditByte wrote: The words Pyramids, Acropolis and Colossus of Rhodes come to mind.

The Colossus was really only like 8 feet tall. They just used to build really small ships back then.

At 11/18/06 12:09 PM, EZ3 wrote: On the arguement about what could marching do for public opinion, i'd say look at the effect of gay marches.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Everyone is confused about the real problem. It's not how women handle themselves in combat. It's how women and men interact out of combat.

At 11/15/06 07:01 PM, WinTang wrote:

I think you're trying to cram more into a narrowly defined definition than is possible. There are a whole suite of words used to describe statements that are in different states of proof. There are postulates and lemmas and theorems and propositions.

Furthermore, it can be proven from axiomatic statements that 1+1 is always equal to 2. The proof is a bit hard to follow and it uses some mathematical thinking that might be a little weird to people. I'll post it later if you can't find it on your own.

At 11/15/06 04:44 PM, WinTang wrote: Axioms are statements that are considered true because they fit a certain observable pattern, and have not been proven false.

Where did you come up with that definition.
An axiom is a statment that is fundamentaly true in of itself. It is not dependent on aything and stands on it's own not requiring any other statement to be true for it to be true.

At 11/15/06 02:51 PM, EternalRabbit wrote: there is no way to prove something... you can only disprove it! that is the basis for theorums in math and laws in science

You ever hear about mathematical induction? How about deductive reasoning? Look those up in an encyclopedia some time.

Your "axioms" are far too complicated to be truly axiomatic.

A very obvious metaphysical axiom is that "something exists." It is unimaginable that that statement could be untrue.

A fundamental mathematical axiom might be " if X and Y have the same elements then X=Y"

I'll also put foward the following as undeniable, but only because the consequences of it being untrue make life meaningless. If life has no meaning then there's really no point in arguing. I might be a little off on a few of these, I'm open to a bit of debate but the fundamental idea is solid and undeniable.
"Knowledge (to some degree) is possible"
"Goodness exists"
"Moral actions are possible"
"Immoral actions are possible"

At 11/13/06 06:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

you should have tackled it from the pregnancy angle.

I have allready mentioned that aspect of the problem in a previous post. I don't have major problems with women being stationed at military bases. There's a big difference though when you take 300 or more people and cram them together and isolate them for months. But I agree with you on the pregnancy thing. I went to school for my equipment in San Diego and there was a disproportionate amount of pregnant women there. It saddens me that some hard working sailor is getting stuck with another sea tour because his shore billet was taken by some bitch who got herself pregnant because she didn't like to work hard. I understand that not all women in the military who get pregnant are malicious evil bitches, but enough are that it's a problem.

I think that everyone is missing the undeniable fact that men and women have sex with eachother. No, it won't go away. No, they won't become like family. What happens is that a few guys have sex with the few women and people get jealous. Then the situation changes and it's different guys who are having sex with the women and eventually everyone who wasn't smart enough to stay out of that disaster hates eachother.

It's called reality.

At 11/12/06 10:50 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote:

At 11/7/06 09:27 PM, A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot wrote: I'm not sure exactly what your problem with women on ships is. I think you might not understand what the Navy's role in combat is.

ah the navy; nothing but rum, the lash and sodomy.

Err... I mean, I was talking about what the navy is paid for... and sodomy is punishable under the UCMJ with little to no effect.

I wonder how many of the people defending the position of having women in the military have actually served with women. The claim that women are distracting, I can't make any statements about whether or not they are distracting in actual combat but they are a disruption in normal operations in my experience. Many men can keep it from being a personal problem and not all women let themselves cause problems. However, there are a lot of women who use their position to their advantage. I have seen first hand women get men to do all their work for them, they don't even have to have sex with everyone, just a few on occasion to create that reward for moving all the way up the status ladder.

And then there's pregnancy. Women get themselves pregnant a lot in the military. I could rant forever on this subject but I'll just say that I'd prefer that women be contractually obligated to not get pregnant in their first four years of service or face discharge. I know that there would need to be exceptions to the rule but it's really frustrating to see the billets that are supposed to be a break from arduous duty go to women who got themselves pregnant.